Salary reduction and recovery orders issued without prior notice or hearing violate principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was engaged as a daily wage unskilled worker in Madhav National Park in August 1982.

After 26 years of service, he was upgraded to the "skilled worker" category effective May 1, 2008.

Following a State circular dated October 7, 2016, regarding the regularization of daily wagers, the petitioner was designated as a Sthai Karmi (Permanent Worker) on January 19, 2017, and his pay was fixed at ₹7,880/- in the scale of ₹5000-8000/- via an order dated January 23, 2017.

However, following a subsequent clarification circular dated November 23, 2017, the respondents issued an order on September 12, 2018, refixing and reducing the petitioner’s pay to ₹7,000/- and ordering the recovery of excess payments.

The petitioner challenged this reduction and recovery, alleging a violation of natural justice as no notice or hearing was provided.

1. Whether the impugned order reducing the petitioner's pay and directing recovery is sustainable when passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing or a show-cause notice.

2. Whether the respondents could refix the petitioner’s salary while the original fixation order dated January 23, 2017, remained valid and uncancelled.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine that an order entailing civil consequences cannot be passed without providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard.

State's regularization scheme for daily wagers outlined in the General Administration Department Circulars dated 07.10.2016 and 23.11.2017.

The principle that recovery is impermissible where the employee has not engaged in fraud or misrepresentation regarding their pay fixation.

The Court observed that the petitioner had rendered 34 years of service and was upgraded to the skilled category through valid administrative orders.

The court found that the respondents summarily reduced the petitioner's pay and ordered recovery based on a subsequent clarification without issuing a show-cause notice or assigning specific reasons for the refixation.

It was noted that the original pay fixation order of January 23, 2017, had never been formally cancelled or set aside.

Crucially, the court found that the petitioner had neither suppressed material facts nor misrepresented his status to obtain the higher pay.

Consequently, the court determined that the unilateral reduction of salary, carrying significant civil consequences, was a violation of the principles of natural justice and was legally flawed.

The Court held that since the original fixation order of January 23, 2017, remained in force, the petitioner was entitled to have his pay maintained/refixed according to that order.

The respondents were directed to refund any recovered amounts within three months.

Failure to comply within the three-month period would result in the respondents paying interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entitlement until actual payment.